太子爷小说网 > 英语电子书 > the lights of the church and the light of science >

第3节

the lights of the church and the light of science-第3节

小说: the lights of the church and the light of science 字数: 每页4000字

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页,按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页,按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部!
————未阅读完?加入书签已便下次继续阅读!




truth has not yet penetrated among many of those who speak and

write on these subjects; it may be useful to give a full

illustration of it。 And for that purpose I propose to deal; at

some length; with the narrative of the Noachian Deluge given

in Genesis。





The Bampton lecturer in 1859; and the Canon of St。 Paul's in

1890; are in full agreement that this history is true; in the

sense in which I have defined historical truth。 The former is of

opinion that the account attributed to Berosus records

a tradition





not drawn from the Hebrew record; much less the foundation of

that record; yet coinciding with it in the most remarkable way。

The Babylonian version is tricked out with a few extravagances;

as the monstrous size of the vessel and the translation of

Xisuthros; but otherwise it is the Hebrew history down to its

minutiae。 (p。 64)。





Moreover; correcting Niebuhr; the Bampton lecturer points out

that the narrative of Berosus implies the universality of

the Flood。





It is plain that the waters are represented as prevailing above

the tops of the loftiest mountains in Armeniaa height which

must have been seen to involve the submersion of all the

countries with which the Babylonians were acquainted (p。 66)。





I may remark; in passing; that many people think the size of

Noah's ark 〃monstrous;〃 considering the probable state of the

art of shipbuilding only 1600 years after the origin of man;

while others are so unreasonable as to inquire why the

translation of Enoch is less an 〃extravagance〃 than that of

Xisuthros。 It is more important; however; to note that the

Universality of the Deluge is recognised; not merely as a part

of the story; but as a necessary consequence of some of its

details。 The latest exponent of Anglican orthodoxy; as we have

seen; insists upon the accuracy of the Pentateuchal history of

the Flood in a still more forcible manner。 It is cited as one of

those very narratives to which the authority of the Founder of

Christianity is pledged; and upon the accuracy of which 〃the

trustworthiness of our Lord Jesus Christ〃 is staked; just as

others have staked it upon the truth of the histories of

demoniac possession in the Gospels。



Now; when those who put their trust in scientific methods of

ascertaining the truth in the province of natural history find

themselves confronted and opposed; on their own ground; by

ecclesiastical pretensions to better knowledge; it is;

undoubtedly; most desirable for them to make sure that their

conclusions; whatever they may be; are well founded。 And; if

they put aside the unauthorised interference with their business

and relegate the Pentateuchal history to the region of pure

fiction; they are bound to assure themselves that they do so

because the plainest teachings of Nature (apart from all

doubtful speculations) are irreconcilable with the assertions

which they reject。



At the present time; it is difficult to persuade serious

scientific inquirers to occupy themselves; in any way; with the

Noachian Deluge。 They look at you with a smile and a shrug; and

say they have more important matters to attend to than mere

antiquarianism。 But it was not so in my youth。 At that time;

geologists and biologists could hardly follow to the end any

path of inquiry without finding the way blocked by Noah and his

ark; or by the first chapter of Genesis; and it was a serious

matter; in this country at any rate; for a man to be suspected

of doubting the literal truth of the Diluvial or any other

Pentateuchal history。 The fiftieth anniversary of the foundation

of the Geological Club (in 1824) was; if I remember rightly; the

last occasion on which the late Sir Charles Lyell spoke to even

so small a public as the members of that body。 Our veteran

leader lighted up once more; and; referring to the difficulties

which beset his early efforts to create a rational science of

geology; spoke; with his wonted clearness and vigour; of the

social ostracism which pursued him after the publication of the

〃Principles of Geology;〃 in 1830; on account of the obvious

tendency of that noble work to discredit the Pentateuchal

accounts of the Creation and the Deluge。 If my younger

contemporaries find this hard to believe; I may refer them to a

grave book; 〃On the Doctrine of the Deluge;〃 published eight

years later; and dedicated by its author to his father; the then

Archbishop of York。 The first chapter refers to the treatment of

the 〃Mosaic Deluge;〃 by Dr。 Buckland and Mr。 Lyell; in the

following terms:





Their respect for revealed religion has prevented them from

arraying themselves openly against the Scriptural account of it

much less do they deny its truthbut they are in a great

hurry to escape from the consideration of it; and evidently

concur in the opinion of Linnaeus; that no proofs whatever of

the Deluge are to be discovered in the structure of the

earth (p。 1)。





And after an attempt to reply to some of Lyell's arguments;

which it would be cruel to reproduce; the writer continues:



When; therefore; upon such slender grounds; it is

determined; in answer to those who insist upon its universality;

that the Mosaic Deluge must be considered a preternatural event;

far beyond the reach of philosophical inquiry; not only as to

the causes employed to produce it; but as to the effects most

likely to result from it; that determination wears an aspect of

scepticism; which; however much soever it may be unintentional

in the mind of the writer; yet cannot but produce an evil

impression on those who are already predisposed to carp and

cavil at the evidences of Revelation (pp。 8…9)。





The kindly and courteous writer of these curious passages is

evidently unwilling to make the geologists the victims of

general opprobrium by pressing the obvious consequences of their

teaching home。 One is therefore pained to think of the feelings

with which; if he lived so long as to become acquainted with the

〃Dictionary of the Bible;〃 he must have perused the article

〃Noah;〃 written by a dignitary of the Church for that standard

compendium and published in 1863。 For the doctrine of the

universality of the Deluge is therein altogether given up; and I

permit myself to hope that a long criticism of the story from

the point of view of natural science; with which; at the request

of the learned theologian who wrote it; I supplied him; may; in

some degree; have contributed towards this happy result。



Notwithstanding diligent search; I have been unable to discover

that the universality of the Deluge has any defender left; at

least among those who have so far mastered the rudiments of

natural knowledge as to be able to appreciate the weight of

evidence against it。 For example; when I turned to the

〃Speaker's Bible;〃 published under the sanction of high Anglican

authority; I found the following judicial and judicious

deliverance; the skilful wording of which may adorn; but does

not hide; the completeness of the surrender of the

old teaching:





Without pronouncing too hastily on any fair inferences from the

words of Scripture; we may reasonably say that their most

natural interpretation is; that the whole race of man had become

grievously corrupted since the faithful had intermingled with

the ungodly; that the inhabited world was consequently filled

with violence; and that God had decreed to destroy all mankind

except one single family; that; therefore; all that portion of

the earth; perhaps as yet a very small portion; into which

mankind had spread was overwhelmed with water。 The ark was

ordained to save one faithful family; and lest that family; on

the subsidence of the waters; should find the whole country

round them a desert; a pair of all the beasts of the land and of

the fowls of the air were preserved along with them; and along

with them went forth to replenish the now desolated continent。

The words of Scripture (confirmed as they are by universal

tradition) appear at least to mean as much as this。 They do not

necessarily mean more。





In the third edition of Kitto's 〃Cyclopaedia of Biblical

Literature〃 (1876); the article 〃Deluge;〃 written by my friend;

the present distinguished head of the Geological Survey of Great

Britain; extinguishes the universality doctrine as thoroughly as

might be expected from its authorship; and; since the writer of

the article 〃Noah〃 refers his readers to that entitled 〃Deluge;〃

it is to be supposed; notwithstanding his generally orthodox

tone; that he does not dissent from its conclusions。 Again; the

writers in Herzog's 〃Real…Encyclopadie〃 (Bd。 X。 1882) and in

Riehm's 〃Handworterbuch〃 (1884)both works with a conservative

leaningare on the same side; and Diestel; in his full

discussion of the subject; remorselessly rejects the

u

返回目录 上一页 下一页 回到顶部 0 0

你可能喜欢的